RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:These disagreementad hominem attacks, links to promoters who learned their trade in the mining space (TMR, CEO) and links to SeekingAlpha to drive reader hits have taken a lot of space here, but don't add much to the discussion of the value of the company.
ignoring all costs beyond the wellhead makes no sense: when you quote the EV/CF mulitples of other companies, they are calculated on a corporate cash flow. people here are then using those and comparing it to PTA's field cash flow. Aside from debating PTA's corporate costs, anyone can agree that using an apples to apples comparison is right.
Selectively eliminating costs is a fallacy of rose colored glasses. How rosy are yours?
at wellhead: we still don't have any particularly detailed description of the new oil sales contract. LM production traced Brent decently. We'll have to see in Q1 what these sales through Ecuador look like on a differential basis to Brent. Macro: lower prices have been seen for US imports as the US supply has grown, secondly heavier imports have widened more than light. Both these are relevant to Napo. Search Napo and see it was selling for a ~$14 discount to Brent in December. Napo's primary market is US gulf. All the US gulf destined import prices are taking severe hits as US production is increasing - they simply don't need or want the imports.
https://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/ProductsServices/Products/crudeoilmktwire.pdf
post wellhead: PTA pays cash tax, G&A and interest. G&A reduction plan from management still has them at about $17 million G&A, which corroborates to management estimates for 2015 so don't try to say it's all one time stuff. On the plus side, the savings from ecuador shipping will be displayed at least partly in q1.
Adjusting for these brings the netback down in my view to sub $15 corporately. That means at least a 2x CF multiple on a comparable method to other companies (including all of the above, not stopping at wellhead for us and using multiples of others that include all these costs).
Also they won’t be 5,500 for the year. Will be under even in H1 even on their own forecast, second half the lack of activity really kicks in and will be lower.
Brent is not $60 its $5 less.
conclusion: it's not hard to see your way to +- $15mm cf in 2015. Therefore PTA is trading at 3-4x CF when you take off the rose colored glasses.
I don't care if that multiple is high or low or 2 or 7. What I care about is if I'm paying ~3.5, am I getting value at that price vs. others in the space? Can the business grow to expand the base at that multiple, so 3.5 is applied to larger cash flows? Well, they don't operate, don't control capital decisions, and historically they have not grown, and the slideshow for 2015 doesn't show a clear path to it.
The exchange rate and brent arguments are fine, but keep in mind they are better arguments for Parex, Rubiales, Canacol than they are for PetroAmerica due to larger production bases. Buying PTA for a COP/USD view or a Brent view is wrong. Management is hired by buying stock to add value in the oil and gas business. Buy currency or oil futures if that's what you're playing.